Category: Serbia

According to positive regulations in the Republic of Serbia, each party shall present the facts and propose the evidence on which it bases its request or with which it disputes the allegations and evidence of the opponent. The evidence includes all the facts relevant to making a decision. Both in civil and arbitration procedures, the most common means of evidence are documents and testimonies.

The written statement of the witness presents evidence – a document made by a witness in which he presents his knowledge about the facts and events relevant to the court proceedings.

Written statements of witnesses were introduced in comparative practice as a substitute for direct examination of witnesses, with the aim of conducting the proceeding more efficiently. In domestic legislation, it was introduced by the Civil Procedure Law in 2011, as an alternative to  “regular testimony”.

According to the provisions of the current Civil Procedure Law, as a rule, witnesses give their statements orally, directly at the hearing. Upon summons of the court, the witness personally attends the court hearing, where he is invited to present everything of his knowledge about the facts of which he is to testify, after which the court and the parties in the proceeding may ask questions for verification, supplementation, or clarification.

The Civil Procedure Law provides the possibility to present the evidence by reading the statement of a witness in which he presents the knowledge of the important disputed facts, where he knows them from and what is his relationship to parties in the proceeding.  The written statement of the witness must be certified in court or by the person exercising public authority. Before giving the statement, the person taking the statement must warn the witness about the rights and duties he possesses by this law. The court decides on the presentation of evidence by reading the written statement of the witness, against which a separate appeal is not allowed.

In contrast to the comparative practice where the witness statement replaces the direct court examination of the witness when a party in the proceeding before the Serbian court proposes that the written witness statement be read instead of the direct hearing, that in most cases means that the witness will not be at disposal to the court to ask additional questions, as well as to the opponent for cross-examination. This way of presenting evidence significantly diminishes the possibility of the opponent stating the said evidence, as well as for the court to directly evaluate the probative value of the testimony.

Contrary to the adversarial procedure where a written statement of a witness represents an exception, in the arbitration procedure, it represents the rule. The manner of presenting this evidence in arbitration practice is much closer to comparative practice than to the practice of domestic courts.

In the arbitration procedure, at the very beginning, the parties and the arbitral tribunal agree on the rules that will be applied for the presentation of evidence, as well as the schedule according to which the parties will submit their submissions. The arbitral tribunal then prepares the initial procedural order containing the agreed rules. Often, the parties also agree on the use of supplemental rules for the presentation of evidence, such as the Rules on Taking Evidence in International Arbitration of the International Bar Association (IBA Rules on Taking Evidence in International Arbitration). In addition to procedural rules, the arbitral tribunal also prepares a timetable for the conduct of the proceedings, which includes deadlines for the parties to submit their submissions, as well as the date or dates on which a hearing will be held.

When it comes to witnesses, it is customary for the parties in arbitration proceedings to agree that witness statements will be submitted in written form. Witness statements are submitted as attachments to the submissions, which are filed according to a pre-agreed schedule, often several months before the scheduled hearing.

The procedural order usually defines the elements that witness statements must contain. This issue is also regulated by the Rules on Taking Evidence in International Arbitration of the International Bar Association, which prescribe that a written witness statement must include:

• Full name and address of the witness, a statement regarding their current and past connections with any of the parties in the proceedings (if any), and a description of their background, qualifications, training, and experience, to the extent they may be relevant to the dispute or the content of the statement;
• A complete and detailed description of the facts and the source of the witness’s knowledge, as well as the documents to which the witness refers (if they are not already in the case file);
• Statement regarding the language in which the witness statement is drafted and the language in which the witness will be examined at the hearing;
• Confirmation of the truthfulness of the statement; and
• Date and place of giving the statement and the witness’s signature.

In contrast to civil procedure, a witness who has given a written statement is available and appears at the hearing. The procedural conclusion usually provides that if a certain witness is called but does not come without a valid reason, the arbitral tribunal will not take that written statement into account. This creates a certain obligation for the party to ensure the presence of the witness. At the beginning of the hearing, the party that proposed the witness has the opportunity to ask the witness questions if it is necessary to clarify any ambiguities from the written statement. The opposing party then cross-examines the witness. After cross-examination, there is a re-direct examination, which is limited to the topics covered in cross-examination. The witness’s testimony ends with a re-cross examination, which is limited to the topics covered in the re-direct examination. At any time during the hearing, the arbitral tribunal may ask the witness questions.

In a civil procedure, a witness usually gives an oral statement at the hearing. The advantage of giving an oral statement is that the court can assess the witness’s credibility and the probative value of their testimony based on their demeanour, the way they give their statement, and how they answer questions. On the other hand, this method of presenting evidence limits the court’s and the opposing party’s ability to prepare for the witness’s testimony. The court can only prepare based on the evidence in the case file, while the opposing party’s representative can consult with the party and other individuals who have direct knowledge of the facts on which the witness will testify. Nonetheless, a witness can always present some facts that neither the court nor the opposing party could have anticipated.

In civil proceedings, a written statement by a witness is rarely used as evidence.

Unlike in comparative law practice where it serves as a substitute for direct examination, in our law, a witness statement is usually submitted if that witness will not be available to the court. Considering that the court is not able to directly examine the witness’s credibility and the opposing party cannot question that credibility with their questions, the probative value of such a document is significantly reduced.

The situation is different in arbitration practice. In arbitration proceedings, the parties and the arbitral tribunal agree on the rules of evidence, and it is most often provided that witnesses will give a written statement. Witness statements are submitted according to a pre-agreed schedule, which is even several months before the scheduled hearing. This way of submitting a witness statement gives the opposing party enough time to obtain and submit written evidence or statements from their witnesses to challenge the facts presented. In addition, the opposing party is aware of the facts on which the witness will testify, so they can better prepare for cross-examination at the hearing.

By comparing the ways of presenting evidence through witness testimony in civil proceedings and arbitration practice, it can be concluded that arbitration creates better conditions for the parties to prepare for the testimony itself and thus speed up the proceedings in accordance with the principle of procedural economy.

By Ivana Petkovic, Senior Associate, and Dimitrije Stepanovic, Associate, JPM & Partners

Despite a recent M&A slowdown, updates to the capital markets and land rights laws, renewable energy auctions, and business migration heavily impact Serbia’s legal and business landscape, according to Doklestic Repic & Gajin Partner Slobodan Doklestic.

“Over the past few months, we have observed a slight slowdown in M&A activity both in Serbia and other countries in our region,” Doklestic begins. “The exact reasons for this slowdown are difficult to pinpoint, but it could be attributed to the delayed impact of the slowdown in Western European M&A markets,” he posits. However, he reports there being “a resurgence in markets like London, which indicates that the effects will likely reach the Serbian market as well. We anticipate the market to pick up again starting in September.”

Apart from the M&A slowdown, Doklestic highlights several booming areas. In particular, he mentions “the new law on capital markets, which came into effect at the beginning of this year and is now gaining traction. The key novelty of this law is the introduction of substantial fines for non-compliance by public companies,” he says. These fines can reach up to 15% of the company’s annual turnover. “The introduction of these significant fines is a game-changer and will likely lead companies to approach compliance in Serbia more seriously going forward.”

And there is another regulatory change expected by the end of this year, Doklestic says, regarding land rights. “Currently, most companies that were privatized in the early 2000s only have the right to use the land and cannot obtain construction permits until they convert this right to ownership. The current process for conversion is complicated and may involve paying fair market value for the land, leading to delays and difficulties,” he explains. “However, under the new rules, land use rights should be automatically converted to ownership rights without incurring any costs.” He expects this change to attract new investments for “many companies with production facilities in Serbia, allowing them to expand.”

Additionally, Doklestic reports there is an exciting new development in the renewable energy sector. “The government announced at the beginning of June that they are finally conducting an auction for energy produced from renewable wind and solar sources.” He elaborates that the auction period will run until “mid-August and will continue over the next two years with subsequent auctions. These auctions offer contracts for difference (premiums) for 15 years, with maximum prices for electricity at EUR 105 per megawatt-hour for wind and EUR 90 per megawatt-hour for solar,” he explains. “Incentives will be awarded to the investors that offer the lowest prices compared to the price ceiling. The government will provide the winning bidders with the difference between the quoted price and the market reference price. For the three-year cycle, they plan to auction a gigawatt of wind and 300 megawatts of solar in total.”

Finally, “the migration of businesses from Ukraine and Russia, as well as the relocation of businesspeople and IT professionals to Serbia, has had a significant impact as well,” Doklestic reports. “The IT landscape has undergone substantial changes, with start-ups and young, educated IT engineers arriving in the country. In the medium term, we anticipate the IT market to continue booming, leading to numerous investments and transactions over the next few years,” he concludes.

The BBR Bank has appointed Cvjeticanin & Partners Partner Nenad Cvjeticanin as its data representative for Serbia.

“The bank is expanding its activities in the Balkans and our law firm is providing consultancy and assistance in this matter,” Cvjeticanin & Partners reported.

Specializing in company law, intellectual property, media, and internet law, Nenad Cvjeticanin has been with the Cvjeticanin & Partners law office since 2009. He received his LLM degree from the University of Belgrade in 2004.

“The BBR Bank has now appointed Nenad Cvjeticanin to act as its local representative, thus complying, in its business activities, with Serbian personal data protection legislation,” the bank announced.

Kinstellar has announced it is strengthening its presence in Serbia by teaming up with the local SOG Law Firm in a strategic partnership.

According to Kinstellar, “this new partnership brings together the collective strengths, resources, and experience of both law firms, creating a stronger offering in Serbia and the Western Balkans region. It presents a unique opportunity to achieve greater success, provide enhanced services to clients, and expand our local footprint.”

SOG is a full-service law firm that has 20 lawyers, including three partners, and a total of 25 staff. The new Partners joining Kinstellar via this partnership with SOG are Managing Partner Milos Velimirovic and Partners Radovan Grbovic and Milan Samardzic. They join existing Kinstellar Serbia Partners Petar Kojdic and Branislav Maric.

Velimirovic has been with SOG since 2016. Prior to that, he spent over eight years in-house with the Hypo Alpe-Adria-Bank and, earlier still, four years as an Adviser to the President of the Belgrade Municipality of Savski Venac.

Grbovic joined the team in 2013. Before that, he spent four years running the Grbovic Law Office and two as an Of Counsel with the Specht Law Office. Between 2009 and 2015 he was also an Of Counsel with TARGO Telekom.

Samardzic has been with SOG since 2011. Prior to that, he spent two years as a Senior Associate with DLA Piper. Earlier, he also spent time with Specht – almost three years – and, earlier still, he spent two and a half years with the Ninkovic Law Office.

“Kinstellar is excited to join forces with such a reputable firm as SOG,” Kinstellar Managing Partner Patrik Bolf commented. “This strategic partnership allows us to leverage our strengths and resources to better serve our clients. Together, we can provide comprehensive legal solutions, expand our reach, and deliver exceptional client service. We look forward to a successful collaboration.”

“We are excited to join with Kinstellar,” SOG Managing Partner Milos Velimirovic added. “By combining our expertise and experience, we can deliver an even higher caliber of legal services. This collaboration strengthens our commitment to excellence and enables us to provide comprehensive solutions across multiple jurisdictions. We are confident that our partnership will be highly beneficial to our clients.”

Karanovic & Partners has advised Marriott International on the development and opening of its first Moxy hotel in Belgrade, Serbia.

According to the firm, the 131-guestroom hotel has two conference rooms and is “located in the city center, within one of the oldest cultural neighborhoods of Belgrade. The design of the property is inspired by art and architectural moments of the 20th century and the rise of modern Belgrade.”

The Karanovic & Partners team included Partner Ana Lukovic and Senior Associate Milorad Gajic.

Bojovic, Draskovic, Popovic & Partners has announced the launch of its Environmental, Social, and Governance department led by Partner Milica Pesteric.

According to the firm, “the transition from a linear economic and industrial model to circular one is a challenging and demanding job that will require companies to hire professionals versed in these services. The benefits of the circular economy are numerous – saving natural resources, preserving the environment, reducing the impact of climate change, and introducing more innovative products, to name just a few. Significant initial investments in research, development, and monitoring are needed in order to successfully establish a circular economy system.”

The firm describes Pesteric as a “key member of the team in the Energy & Infrastructure department, with more than ten years of experience in the energy sector in Serbia.” Pesteric, whose main focus is on energy, corporate and commercial law, and finance matters, has been with BD2P since 2018 and has recently been promoted to a Partner position (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on May 9, 2023). Before joining the firm, she spent almost eight years in-house with energy company NIS Gazprom Neft.

Court fees represent an important part of the costs in every legal proceeding. Matters related to court fees in the Republic of Serbia are currently regulated by the Law on Court Fees and the Fee Tariff contained within that law.

In civil proceedings, court fees are paid during or upon the conclusion of the proceedings. The court is not authorized to condition the initiation, continuation, or conclusion of a civil proceeding on the payment of court fees. In case of non-payment of court fees when due, the court can only initiate enforcement proceedings against the fee obligor for the forced collection of the unpaid court fees. In such a case, the amount of the unpaid fee obligation is increased by 50%, and the party against whom the enforcement proceedings are initiated is obliged to bear all the costs of the enforcement proceedings that arise. Therefore, the initiation, course, and conclusion of a civil proceeding are not and cannot be conditioned by the payment of court fees. All of this is due to the fact that the protection of parties’ right to access the court takes precedence over the court’s and the state’s interest in collecting court fees.

However, sporadic practices of certain judges delaying the declaration of enforceability and finality of a court decision that concludes a civil proceeding has been observed in situations where the fee obligor who has succeeded in the dispute has outstanding court fee debts in that specific civil proceeding. This behavior by the court is evidently aimed at “motivating” the fee obligor to pay the due court fees without initiating enforcement proceedings so that they can forcibly enforce the awarded claim granted by the court decision.

Furthermore, if the plaintiff is a foreign citizen or a stateless person without residence in the Republic of Serbia, upon the defendant’s request in the civil proceeding, the plaintiff may be required by the court’s order to deposit the entire amount of the litigation costs, including the expected amounts of all court fees in the regular course of proceedings, as security for the litigation costs. In this case, the civil proceeding will only continue if the plaintiff complies with the court’s order and deposits the amount as security for the litigation costs within the given deadline. Otherwise, the court will issue an order considering the lawsuit withdrawn. Exceptions to this rule exist in cases of reciprocity and/or international agreements that regulate the exemption from the obligation to provide security for litigation costs between states. In other words, if Serbian citizens are not required to provide security for litigation costs in the country whose citizen is the plaintiff, the plaintiff will not be obliged to provide security for litigation costs upon the defendant’s request before the court in Serbia. In case of doubt, the Ministry responsible for judicial affairs provides explanations regarding the existence of reciprocity.

1. Who is responsible for paying court fees in a civil proceeding?

The law stipulates that court fees are paid by the parties on whose motion or in whose interest actions are taken in the judicial proceeding. For submissions and minutes that substitute submissions for which the law requires payment of court fees, the fee is the responsibility of the party submitting them or the party on whose request the minutes are prepared.

Furthermore, the law specifies that the plaintiff is responsible for paying the fee for the decision of the first-instance court, while both parties are responsible for paying the fee for a court settlement unless otherwise agreed. Therefore, when concluding a court settlement, the parties can agree on which party will be obliged by the court to pay the court fee for the settlement, or both parties can be obligated to pay a certain portion (usually half) of the court fee. For decisions of the second-instance court and decisions regarding extraordinary legal remedies, the appellant or the party in whose interest the proceeding was initiated is responsible for paying the court fee.

In the regular course of proceedings in a first-instance civil proceeding, the court will require the plaintiff to pay the court fee for the lawsuit and the court fee for the first-instance judgment, and the defendant to pay the court fee for the response to the lawsuit (if the response is submitted to the court). In the second-instance civil proceeding, the party filing the appeal is responsible for paying the court fee for the appeal and the court fee for the second-instance court’s decision on the appeal. The court fee for the second-instance court’s decision on the appeal is not calculated and paid if the appeal is dismissed by the second-instance court’s decision or if the first-instance court’s decision is overturned by the second-instance court’s decision on the appeal.

If a party that has succeeded in the dispute timely and properly submits a request to the court for the award of costs against the other party, the court will, upon the conclusion of the civil proceeding, require the party that has lost the case to reimburse the costs of the civil proceeding to the other party. In this case, the court costs that are awarded also include the court fees that were required to be paid by the party that succeeded in the dispute during the proceeding. When determining the amount of costs for court fees to be borne by the party that lost the case, it is considered that the court fees accrued at the moment when the fee obligation arose for the party that succeeded in the dispute, regardless of whether and when the court fee was paid. When awarding costs to the party that succeeded in the dispute, the court will also award statutory default interest on the total amount of the costs of the civil proceeding, but only from the date of enforceability of the court decision on the costs of the civil proceeding until the payment, and if such a request was made in a timely manner.

2. When does the obligation to pay court fees arise?

The law stipulates, among other things, that the obligation to pay court fees for submissions arises when they are submitted to the court, or when the fee calculation is made if the amount depends on the value of the subject matter in dispute, and for submissions made on record – when the record is prepared. The fee obligation for court decisions arises when they are announced, and if the party is not present at the announcement or if the decision is not publicly announced – when a copy of the decision is delivered to the party or its representative. For court settlements, the fee obligation arises when they are concluded. The currently valid law provides an exception to the aforementioned rules, specifically regarding the obligation to pay court fees for the lawsuit and the fee for the response to the lawsuit. The fee obligation for the lawsuit and the response to the lawsuit arises only on the day of the conclusion of the first hearing for the main trial, and only if the civil proceeding is not concluded at that hearing through mediation, court settlement, acknowledgment of the plaintiff’s claim, or waiver of the plaintiff’s claim.

If the parties conclude the civil proceeding no later than the conclusion of the first hearing for the main trial through mediation, court settlement, acknowledgment of the plaintiff’s claim, or waiver of the plaintiff’s claim, they are exempted from paying any court fees. By this exemption, the legislator aims to motivate the parties to resolve disputes substantively at the very beginning of the civil proceeding with minimal court involvement, thereby reducing the burden on courts in terms of the number of active cases and the costs of civil proceedings. The withdrawal of a lawsuit by the plaintiff as a way to end the dispute is not explicitly covered by this exemption from court fees. However, from the legal provisions governing the accrual of the fee obligation, it follows that the fee obligation for court fees for the lawsuit and the response to the lawsuit arises only on the day of the conclusion of the first hearing for the main trial.

Therefore, in a situation where the civil proceeding is concluded due to the withdrawal of the lawsuit before the conclusion of the first hearing for the main trial, the fee obligation for court fees for the lawsuit and the response to the lawsuit has not even arisen, and there is no basis for their collection.

The law stipulates that the court fee must be paid no later than eight days from the date of the fee obligation. Additionally, courts always specify in payment orders for court fees that the party is required to pay the court fee within 8 days from the receipt of the court’s order. If, before the issuance of the payment order for court fees, the court fee has already become due for payment due to the expiration of the 8-day deadline from the date of the fee obligation, the courts issue the payment order in the form of a warning or reminder for the payment of the court fee, and in accordance with the law, in addition to the amount of the court fee, they collect an amount of 390.00 dinars or 780.00 dinars in proceedings before the commercial court, as a reminder fee.

Some courts (especially basic courts) have a practice of delivering payment orders and reminders for court fees to the parties or issuing them by a court ruling at the end of the first-instance proceeding after a multi-year duration of the civil proceeding, even though the fee obligation (e.g., for the court fee on the lawsuit) arose several years earlier.
The collection of court fees becomes statute-barred three years after the end of the calendar year in which the fee obligation arose.

3. How are court fees paid?

The law provides that court fees are paid in court fee stamps or in cash.
Court fees up to 5,000 dinars are generally paid using court fee stamps, but payment in cash is also permitted. The retail sale of court fee stamps is carried out by companies and other legal entities authorized by the Government of Serbia, upon the proposal of the Ministry responsible for judicial affairs. Currently, court fee stamps can only be purchased at certain branches of the

Public Enterprise “Pošta Srbije” in denominations of 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 5,000 dinars. The stamps are affixed to the submission that is submitted to the court or handed over to the court and then affixed to the court file, and upon receipt, the court cancels them with a perforating stamp that reads “cancelled” or with the court’s round stamp.

Court fees exceeding 5,000 dinars are always paid in cash. The fee payer pays the court fee in cash by depositing the fee amount into the designated bank account. When submitting proof of paid fee for a court decision, the fee payer is required to indicate the number of the decision for which the fee is paid.
In 2020, through the collaboration between the Ministry of Justice and the Treasury Administration of the Ministry of Finance, the Central System for Court Fees was introduced. Thanks to this system, automatic allocation of a unique reference number for each assessed court fee and automatic reconciliation of court fee payments through the system are enabled. Therefore, most courts no longer require proof of payment of court fees to be submitted to the court, which is communicated to the parties through court fee payment orders.

4. Who is exempt from paying court fees?

The Republic of Serbia, state organs and special organizations, autonomous province bodies, and local self-government unit bodies, Red Cross organizations, as well as supported persons in proceedings related to legal maintenance and individuals requesting the payment of minimum wage, are exempt from paying court fees.

Court fees for submissions and actions are not paid by individuals who donate their property to the Republic of Serbia, social-humanitarian, scientific, or cultural organizations, institutions, or foundations, or who waive their property rights on immovables or grant other property rights on immovables to them free of charge.

A foreign state is exempt from paying the fee if provided for by an international agreement or subject to reciprocity.

As mentioned in the previous section regarding the emergence of the fee obligation, parties are exempt from paying the fee if the litigation process is concluded by mediation, court settlement, admission of the claim, or waiver of the claim before the conclusion of the first hearing for the main hearing.

Article 10 of the Law on Court Fees stipulates that the court may exempt the fee payer from paying the fee if, by paying the fee, the funds from which the fee payer and members of their household are supported would be significantly reduced to the extent that their social security would be jeopardized. Therefore, this provision specifies that only natural persons have the right to request exemption from paying court fees. The first-instance court decides on the exemption from paying court fees based on the request of the fee payer. Before making a decision, the court will assess all circumstances, particularly considering the relevant value for fee collection, the total income of the fee payer and their household members, and the number of persons supported by the fee payer.

The term “household” refers to the community of living, earning, and spending of generated income, and the law defines supported persons as follows:

1. Minors or adopted children,
2. Children or adopted children who are enrolled in regular education or pursuing extracurricular studies, if unemployed – up to the age of 26,
3. Grandchildren who are not supported by their parents and live in the household of the fee payer,
4. Spouse, and
5. Parents or adoptive parents.

The court determines the income of the fee payer based on a certificate from the competent authority or other evidence submitted by the fee payer regarding their financial status. The exemption from paying the fee granted in a litigation proceeding also applies to enforcement proceedings for decisions made in those proceedings if enforcement is requested within three months of the final conclusion of the proceeding.

The decision on exemption from paying court fees applies to all fees related to the corresponding case, regardless of when the fee obligation arose.

The guardian of an absent person whose residence is unknown, the guardian of the property whose owner is unknown, and the temporary representative of a party appointed by the court in a litigation proceeding are not required to pay fees for the person they represent.
Exemption from paying the fee is only applicable to the person to whom the exemption is granted.
If a person exempt from paying the fee succeeds in the proceeding, the fees that they would have been obligated to pay if not exempted will be paid by the other party who does not enjoy the exemption, in proportion to the success of the exempted party in the proceeding. If a settlement is reached between the fee-exempted party and the non-exempted party, the fee that the exempted party would have been required to pay will be paid by the non-exempted party.

If the total amount of fees owed by the fee payer exceeds 1/3 of their monthly income, upon the request of the fee payer, the court may, by decision, determine that the fee obligation be paid in installments, up to a maximum of three monthly installments.

5. Is it possible to refund incorrectly paid court fees?

The law stipulates that a person who has paid a court fee that they were not obliged to pay at all or has paid a fee in an amount greater than prescribed, as well as a person who has paid a fee for a judicial action that, for any reason, was not performed, has the right to a refund of the fee. Additionally, a person who has paid a fee for a judicial action that was not performed has the right to request a refund for the non-performed action, but not for a submission requesting its execution.

The request for a fee refund is submitted to the court that decided in the first instance, within 30 days from the day the fee was incorrectly paid or from the day of knowledge that the judicial action was not performed, but no later than six months from the day the fee was paid. If the request is accepted, the court issues a decision on the refund of the fee and sends it to the Treasury Administration for execution.

6. How is the value of a dispute determined for fee calculation purposes?

In litigation proceedings, fees are paid based on the value of the subject matter of the dispute.
Unless otherwise specified by the Law on Court Fees, provisions of regulations regarding litigation proceedings, which determine the value of a dispute for determining jurisdiction and court composition, are also applied when determining the value of a dispute for fee calculation purposes. The value of the subject matter of the dispute for fee calculation is determined based on the value it has at the time of filing the lawsuit. The value of the subject matter of the dispute, in terms of calculating and collecting court fees, refers to the value of the main claim.

If a single lawsuit encompasses multiple claims against the same defendant, regardless of whether all claims are based on the same factual and legal grounds or not, the value of the subject matter of the dispute for fee calculation purposes is determined by the sum of the values of all the claims.

In cases of formal adversarial parties – if multiple individuals file a single lawsuit or if multiple individuals are sued in a single lawsuit, and the subject matter of the dispute consists of claims or obligations of the same nature based on substantially similar factual and legal grounds, the value of the subject matter of the dispute for fee calculation purposes is determined based on the value of each individual claim.

If the plaintiff includes two or more defendants in a single lawsuit and requests that the claim be granted against the next defendant in case it is not granted against the one mentioned before them, or if they make the same claim against each of them, or if they make different but related claims against some of them, the value of the subject matter of the dispute for fee calculation purposes is determined based on the claim with the higher value.

If the subject matter of the dispute is the right to statutory maintenance or individual amounts of statutory maintenance, the value of the subject matter of the dispute for fee calculation purposes is calculated based on the sum of payments for three months, regardless of whether the payments are sought for a longer period. If maintenance is sought for three months or a shorter period, in that case, the total sum of all payments claimed in the lawsuit is relevant for determining the value of the dispute.

If the subject matter of the dispute is inheritance rights to the entire estate, the value of the subject matter of the dispute is determined based on the value of the net estate. If the subject matter of the dispute is only a portion of the estate or a specific asset from the estate, the value of the subject matter of the dispute is determined based on the net value of that portion or asset.

In property and land disputes and disputes regarding the right to use real estate, the value of the subject matter of the dispute is determined based on the market value of the disputed real estate, but it cannot be lower than:

1. for land – three times the amount of cadastral income from the land;
2. for buildings or separate parts of buildings – three times the amount of three-year rent or lease, and if there is no agreement determining the amount of rent or lease, the amount will be determined based on the rent or lease of a similar building or separate part of the building in the locality where the building is located.

The value of the subject matter of the dispute for fee calculation purposes is taken as:

1. in partition disputes – the value of the portion of the property that the plaintiff seeks to separate from the joint property, but that value cannot be less than 7,500 dinars;
2. in lawsuits where the subject matter of the dispute is the enforcement of an action, omission, or endurance, or the declaration of will or the determination of the existence or non-existence of a right or legal relationship, or the determination of the truth or falsehood of a document – the amount indicated by the plaintiff in the lawsuit, but that amount cannot be less than 4,000 dinars;
3. in lawsuits for annulment of a judgment of the chosen court – the amount awarded to the party, and if the claim does not relate to a monetary amount, the value indicated by the plaintiff in the lawsuit is relevant, which cannot be less than 4,000 dinars;
4. in lawsuits for the declaration of the termination of a contract on the chosen court – the amount of 19,000 dinars;
5. in disputes regarding the termination of a lease or rental agreement, the termination of an agreement on use or lease of an apartment, or a sublease agreement, and in disputes for eviction from an apartment – the amount of 4,000 dinars;
6. in disputes regarding the termination of a lease agreement for commercial premises or in a lawsuit for eviction from commercial premises – the amount of one-year rent;
7. in disputes due to disturbance of possession – the amount of 4,000 dinars.
8. in disputes for establishing or contesting paternity – the amount of 4,000 dinars;
9. in disputes for establishing the validity, annulment, or divorce of a marriage – the amount of 19,000 dinars;
10. in disputes regarding real and personal servitudes and lifelong maintenance – the amount of 19,000 dinars;
11. in disputes for establishing the order of priority of claims in enforcement proceedings – the amount of the claim, up to a maximum of 4,000 dinars.

If a child or spouse maintenance claim is discussed together with a divorce dispute or a dispute for establishing paternity, only one fee is charged, based on the value for which the fee for the divorce dispute or paternity dispute is charged.

If evidence is requested to be secured before initiating a litigation proceeding, the amount of 4,000 dinars is considered as the relevant value for fee collection.

In cases where the value of the subject matter of the dispute cannot be determined in any other manner prescribed by the Law on Court Fees, the value is taken as 15,000 dinars, regardless of which court is competent to resolve the dispute.

The defendant may file an objection to the court that the value of the subject matter of the dispute in the lawsuit has been overestimated, and then the court will determine, by decision, the relevant value for fee collection and the amount of the fee that the fee payer is obliged to pay. The objection regarding the overestimated value of the subject matter of the dispute can be raised by the defendant at the latest until the completion of the preparatory hearing, or if it has not been held, at the first hearing for the main hearing, before the court has engaged in the proceedings. There is no separate appeal allowed against the court’s decision determining the value of the subject matter of the dispute.

The initially determined value remains as the basis for paying the fee, regardless of whether that value has changed during the proceedings. If a decision is challenged by a legal remedy only in a specific part, the fee for the legal remedy is based only on the value of the disputed part. If both parties file a legal remedy, the fee for the legal remedy is determined separately for each party based on the value of the part of the decision being challenged by the legal remedy. In status proceedings, determination proceedings, and cases where the claim does not involve a monetary amount, the relevant value for the fee for the legal remedy is the value for which the fee for the lawsuit was paid. For a legal remedy filed solely against a decision on costs or ancillary claims, the fee is paid only based on the amount of the costs or ancillary claims.

7. How is the amount of court fees determined?

The amount of fees payable for court proceedings is prescribed by the Fee Schedule, which is an integral part of the Law on Court Fees. The Fee Schedule explicitly determines which submissions, court decisions, and settlements in litigation proceedings are subject to a fee and at what amount, and it also sets out the maximum amounts for certain court fees.
The amount of court fees in litigation proceedings is determined based on the value of the subject matter of the dispute, and it depends on whether the fee is paid before a court of general jurisdiction or a commercial court, as well as the type of submission, court decision, or dispute in question.

For a specific range of values of the subject matter of the dispute, fixed amounts of court fees are prescribed, usually with an increase of that fixed amount by a certain percentage of the value of the subject matter of the dispute, resulting in the total amount of court fees to be paid. Due to the numerous submissions, court decisions, and diverse situations for which court fees are paid, we will only mention the method of determining the amount for the most important court fees in litigation proceedings.

For a lawsuit and counterclaim filed before a court of general jurisdiction, the court fee is paid based on the value of the subject matter of the dispute, as follows:
• Up to 10,000 dinars in value – fee of 1,900 dinars.
• Over 10,000 up to 100,000 dinars in value – fee of 1,900 dinars plus 4% of the value of the subject matter of the dispute.
• Over 100,000 up to 500,000 dinars in value – fee of 9,800 dinars plus 2% of the value of the subject matter of the dispute.
• Over 500,000 up to 1,000,000 dinars in value – fee of 29,300 dinars plus 1% of the value of the subject matter of the dispute.
• Over 1,000,000 dinars in value – fee of 48,800 dinars plus 0.5% of the value of the dispute, up to a maximum of 97,500 dinars.

For a lawsuit and counterclaim filed before a commercial court, the fee is paid based on the value of the dispute as follows:
• Up to 10,000 dinars in value – fee of 3,900 dinars.
• From 10,000 to 100,000 dinars in value – fee of 3,900 dinars plus 6% of the value of the subject matter of the dispute.
• From 100,000 to 1,000,000 dinars in value – fee of 15,600 dinars plus 2% of the value of the subject matter of the dispute.
• From 1,000,000 to 10,000,000 dinars in value – fee of 54,600 dinars plus 1% of the value of the subject matter of the dispute.
• Over 10,000,000 dinars in value – fee of 249,600 dinars plus 0.5% of the value of the dispute, up to a maximum of 390,000 dinars.

Therefore, if the value of the dispute before a commercial court is, for example, 200,000 dinars, the total court fee for the lawsuit would amount to 19,500 dinars. This amount is calculated as follows: 15,500 dinars + 4,000 dinars (which is 2% of the value of the subject matter of the dispute) = 19,500 dinars.

For a response to a lawsuit and a response to an appeal or revision, a fee is paid equal to half of the fee for the lawsuit. For an appeal against a judgment or decision, and for an appeal against a decision in disputes concerning disturbance of possession, the fee is paid as for a lawsuit. For a revision against a judgment or decision, and for a motion for a retrial, a fee is paid equal to double the fee for the lawsuit.

Fees for the initial judgment and for a decision in disputes concerning disturbance of possession are paid in the same amount as the fee for the lawsuit. For a default judgment and for a judgment based on admission or waiver, a fee is paid equal to half of the fee for the initial judgment. For decisions of the appellate court on appeals against initial decisions, the fee is paid as for the initial decision, unless the appellate court decision dismisses the appeal or overturns the initial decision, in which case no fee is paid. For a court decision on extraordinary legal remedies, a fee is paid equal to triple the fee for the initial decision, unless the extraordinary legal remedy is dismissed by that decision or the decision of the lower court is overturned, in which case no fee is paid. For a court settlement during the initial proceedings, a fee is paid, based on the value agreed upon by the parties, equal to half of the fee prescribed for the initial decision.

When one of the parties in a proceeding before a commercial court is an individual who is not an entrepreneur, the court fees are paid in the same amount as if the proceedings were conducted before a court of general jurisdiction.

It is recommended that parties always consult with a lawyer to obtain accurate information on all matters related to court fees, including the amount of court fees. This is particularly important when the subject matter of the dispute involves a claim that does not relate to a specific monetary amount.

By Aleksandar Grujic, Senior Associate, JPM Jankovic Popovic Mitic

Radovanovic Stojanovic & Partners has advised the Soravia Group on its sale of the Radisson Collection Hotel Old Mill Belgrade – through a share deal for all shares in Prigan DOO – to the Delta Real Estate Group.

The hotel, occupying a 19th-century former mill with a modern extension, features 236 rooms, a restaurant, a bar, a spa, and a business center with six meeting rooms. 

According to the firm, the “Soravia Group is a growth-oriented and owner-managed family business. Its core business is based on real estate development and concentrates on urban developments, privately financed residences, office and commercial real estate, hotels, subsidized residential developments, and the revitalization of listed properties. With a realized project volume of over EUR 7 billion, the Soravia Group is one of the leading real estate project developers in Austria and Germany, employing more than 4,210 people.”

Delta Real Estate is a regional real estate project developer. It has developed real estate projects with an aggregate volume of more than 600,000 square meters in the last 20 years.

Back in 2021, Radovanovic Stojanovic & Partners also advised the Soravia Group on its sale of the New Mill office building in Belgrade (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on November 30, 2021).  

The RSP team was led by Partner Sasa Stojanovic and included Attorneys at Law Djordje Vicic and Zivko Kovacevic.

Radovanovic Stojanovic & Partners was unable to disclose further information on the deal.

Harrisons has advised the EBRD on its EUR 5 million loan to Banca Intesa Belgrade for on-lending to women-led businesses.

According to the firm, “this credit line will be backed by Swedish grants for technical assistance and advisory support shall boost investments by women entrepreneurs.”

“In Serbia, women-led businesses are usually considered as riskier due to their small size and the fact that they tend to have less hard collateral. Under the new credit line, women entrepreneurs will benefit from risk-sharing, which the EBRD will cover in the amount of up to 8% of the loan amount. This will allow more women entrepreneurs, who would not otherwise be able to provide hard collateral, to apply for and obtain financing,” Harrisons reported.

Harrisons has already advised the EBRD on three other loans to Banca Intesa Belgrade in the last year alone: a EUR 100 million loan for on-lending to small and medium-sized enterprises (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on April 4, 2023), a EUR 15 million loan part of the EBRD Youth in Business in the Western Balkans program (as reported on November 4, 2022), and an EUR 8 million loan for on-lending to eligible women-led small and medium-sized enterprises (as reported on June 21, 2022).

The Harrisons team was led by Consultant Ines Matijevic-Papulin and Principal Mark Harrison and included Associate Mina Zeljkovic.

Accountability is one of the key notions both in GDPR and the Serbian Data Protection Act.

As this data protection principle is introduced, controllers cannot keep making excuses claiming they complied their businesses with the GDPR while having pro forma documents and are in lack adequate documents, engaging DPOs who do not understand what it takes to be compliant, and having employees who do not understand their responsibilities.

This principle is closely connected to the integrity and confidentiality principle.

The GDPR prescribes a clear obligation for controllers to demonstrate that technical and organisational measures are adequate – measures shall be the result of risk assessment in regard to nature, scope, context, and purposes of processing as well as of varying likelihood and severity for the rights and freedoms of natural persons. The risk assessment is twofold. The first part is related to risk assessment of the security of processing (data security) where controllers and processors assess the likelihood of the level of impact of unauthorised disclosure (loss of confidentiality), unauthorized alteration (loss of integrity) and unauthorized destruction or loss (loss of availability) of personal data on natural persons and likelihood and severity of occurrence of events (threats) for personal data. In parallel, risk assessment in regard to other events which may cause damage to the rights and freedoms of natural persons shall be carried out – GPDR and Serbian Data Protection Act oblige controllers to “assess likelihood and severity of risks for the rights and freedoms of natural persons for rights and freedoms of natural persons”.

Discrepancies in terminologies used in GDPR and Serbian Data Protection Act and those used in standard risks assessment methodologies may lead to confusion – in the first phase risks of the likelihood of the level of impact of events on the rights and freedoms are assessed, while, in the second, the likelihood of occurrence and severability of such events. Data Protection Impact Assessment is carried out in cases where the first assessment shows that certain types of processing are likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons or in cases where such assessment is explicitly required by the GDPR and Serbian Data Protection Act. Requirements for both assessments, sanctions for non-compliance and recommended methodologies for carrying out the assessments shall be subject to forthcoming amendments of the Serbian Data Protection Act. Our understanding is supported by the Government Working Group for Drafting Data Protection Strategy and it is incorporated in the said strategy. We have discussed internally and externally the matter of accountability and links of this notion to adequate technical and organisational measures many times. Robust and neutral formulations in Articles 24, 32 and 35 of GDPR (Articles 41, 50 and 54 of the Serbian Data Protection Act) cause a lot of headaches to all stakeholders. Our understanding is that GDPR and the Serbian Data Protection Act prescribe a twofold risk-based approach when defining the obligations of controllers to protect the rights and freedoms of the citizens.

A) Scope of responsibility of the controllers

Art. 24 of GDPR (Art. 41 of Serbian Data Protection Act) imposes a general obligation for controllers:

a. to implement adequate technical and organisational measures to

b. ensure and be able to demonstrate that processing is performed in accordance with GDPR, i.e.,

Serbian Data Protection Act taking into account: c. nature, scope, context and purposes of the processing;

d. the risks of varying likelihood and severity for the rights and freedoms of natural persons. The aim of this Article is to define the scope of responsibility of the controller – to implement adequate technical and organisational measures to ensure and to be able to demonstrate that processing is performed in accordance with GDPR, i.e., Serbian Data Protection Act.

In simple words, technical and organisational measures shall be defined and implemented to comply business of the controller with data protection principles. The controller shall be able to demonstrate i.e. present proofs confirming that its business processes (processing activities) comply with GDPR, i.e., Serbian Data Protection Act. The notion of “adequate” technical and organisational measures implies that the measures shall be defined and implemented following a risk assessment. This conclusion is based on the formulation in the said Article – “taking into account” which means that the controller shall choose a relevant methodology to assess risks of varying likelihood and severity for the rights and freedoms of natural persons. The risk assessment shall be presented to supervisory authorities in case of possible data breaches to demonstrate the adequacy of defined and implemented measures.

B) Risk Assessment in GDPR and Serbian Data Protection Act

The GDPR and Serbian Data Protection Act do not define the notion of risk. However, the notion of risk can be derived from recital 75 of the GDPR Preamble as: “the existence of a likelihood of occurrence of an event which may cause the damage (including unauthorised limitation of rights and freedoms of natural persons) or the other damage for one or more natural persons. There are two dimensions: i. the severity of damage; ii. the likelihood of occurrence of the event which may cause the damage and damage consequences”. Damage can be expressed as material or immaterial damage or limitations of rights and freedoms of natural persons. Damage can be expressed as material or immaterial damage or limitations of rights and freedoms of natural persons. The object of assessment is data protection rights and other rights which are indirectly, through data protection law, protected and which are recognized by EU and national documents. When assessing the risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons, controllers shall:

a. identify risks, i.e., determine:

i. which damages for rights and freedoms may occur;

ii. sources of events which may cause the damage and

iii. circumstances under which the events ii) may occur (sources of risks).

Damages are explained in recital 75 of the GDPR Preamble.
The sources are related to breaches of data protection principles and data protection rights. Circumstances under which the events may occur may be related to excessing authorisations by employees with controllers to handle personal data, hacker attacks, communication with partners and producers of software, etc.

b. evaluate the likelihood of damage occurrence and severity of possible damage to rights and freedoms of natural persons;

The severity of possible damage to the rights and freedoms of natural persons is evaluated by taking into account the nature, scope, context and purposes of the processing. It is important for controllers, i.e., employees responsible for and work in processing activities to form and discuss the list of scenarios of possible damages for the rights of natural persons. The nature of processing refers to types of processing and categories of personal data.

The scope of processing relates to the quantity of personal data processed and of natural persons whose personal data are processed, including natural persons who may suffer the damage indirectly. The context of processing relates to circumstances under which the processing is carried out – for example, whether personal data are collected from data subjects or from other persons/sources, or whether the processing is taking place in a public or private place. The purposes of processing are important, for example, in the case when the controller evaluates whether the intended purpose of processing is compatible with the purposes for which personal data are collected. After completion of risk assessment, risks shall be classified and adequate measures defined and implemented to mitigate the risks to an acceptable level.

C. Discrepancy in terminology

There is a discrepancy between the terminology used in GDPR and Serbian Data Protection Act and the terminology used for standard risk assessment methodologies.

The GDPR uses the formulation “risks of varying likelihood and severity for the rights and freedoms of natural persons”. The terms used in GDPR and Serbian Data Protection Act have been used in a more descriptive manner in standard risks assessment methodologies: i. risk of likelihood of impact of the event for rights and freedoms of natural persons and ii. likelihood of occurrence and severity of the event. The obligation of the controller in Art. 24 of GDPR, i.e., Art. 41 of the Serbian Data Protection Act is expanded in Art. 32 of GDPR, i.e., Art 50 of the Serbian Data Protection Act and Art. 35 of GDPR, i.e., Art. 54 of the Serbian Data Protection Act.

D. Security of processing – risk assessment

Art. 32 of GDPR, i.e., Art. 50 of the Serbian Data Protection Act defines the obligation of the controllers and processors to define and implement adequate data security measures to protect personal data from an accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure of, or access to personal data transmitted, stored, or otherwise processed. “While data protection predominantly lays down requirements related to the autonomy of the individual to protect his personal data, data security has a mission to prevent unauthorised access to personal data as well as to enable integrity and availability of personal data through technical and organisational measures.”

Data protection deals with legal requirements for processing, while data security deals with the technical and organisational framework in which the processing of personal data can be carried out.

According to the methodology recommended by the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA), risk assessment of the security of processing is twofold:

a. assessment of the impact of unauthorized disclosure (loss of confidentiality), unauthorized alteration (loss of integrity), and unauthorized destruction or loss (loss of availability) of personal data on the individual;

b. assessment of threats and their likelihood in the following data processing environment (business areas of the controller):

i. network and technical resources (hardware and software);

ii. processes/procedures related to the processing activities;

iii. different parties and people involved in the processing activity;

iv) business sector and scale of the processing. After evaluating the impact of the processing activities and the relevant threat occurrence probability, the final evaluation of risk is possible by multiplying the highest risk levels from both evaluations.

E. Data Protection Impact Assessment

Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) is carried out in cases when the first assessment shows that certain types of processing are likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons or in cases where such assessment is explicitly required by GDPR and Serbian Data Protection Act.

The notion “Data Protection Impact Assessment” itself indicates that the subject of this assessment is an assessment of the existing protection for rights and freedoms of natural persons, i.e., that this assessment is carried out in case the first (existing) assessment and measures determined and implemented cannot mitigate high risks determined.

Thus, different methodologies shall be used with the DPIA to assess risks and to define and implement additional measures. In cases when GDPR and Serbian Data Protection Act obliges controller to carry out Data Protection Impact Assessments (Art, 35 para 3 of GDPR and Art 54 para 4 of Serbian Data Protection and Decision of the Commissioner on Types of Processing for Which Data Protection Impact Assessment Must be Carried Out and the Prior Opinion of the Commissioner Asked (“Official Gazette RS” Nos. 45/2019 and 112/2020), controllers do not carry out risks assessment described above.

When the controllers use artificial intelligence systems (AIS) in processing activities, Data Protection Impact Assessment is more complex, as it includes a risk assessment of AIS which the controller himself is not able to carry out without the provider of AIS (supplier or producer). This topic will be discussed in our next article.

By Ivan Milosevic, Partner, JPM Jankovic Popovic Mitic